- Jan 17, 2008
- 10,328
- 50,217
I think it's largely because the best managers that we want to bring in are currently in stable jobs at largely well-run clubs where they are overachieving (ETH, Potter, Gasperini, Gerrard). While some of those managers might take the risk of making the jump to a bigger club, Spurs are a complicated proposition: high expectations, a meddling chairman and (relatively) limited expenditure.I agree with your second point, as to the first point, I wonder how true this is really and whether it's more about gossip and media narratives.
Under Levy the club progressed massively. We pay higher and higher wages, we might be more restrained with spending but we're still lavish compared to 85% of the division. We can now retain our biggest stars and get the best years out of them etc.
It's a difficult job, probably the hardest in england, but Redknapp, Jol and Pochettino managed to come out of it with strong, somewhat boosted profiles.
Has anyone categorically said that Levy is a monstro; like some of these wacky Italian and Spanish owners we used to hear about? A more business-like attitude may difficult at times but it surely not as horrifying as is frequently implied. Why is it better to work for Kroenke, or the Glazers, or Ashley? Why is working for Abramovic more appealing when their managers are judged harshly and undermined and have short violent tenures?
As I said, it's a hard job but if you believe yourself to be competent and are confident and ambitious, this job shouldn't be that unappealing and the hysteria is bit much.
Add in the farcical manager hunt last summer and it hardly paints a picture of a club with good leadership pulling in the right direction. Why risk losing a good thing when you could be out on your arse like Nuno in 3 months (probably).
The very top managers like Conte are deemed too expensive, while we dick around the managers at the other end like Fonseca.
It's a tricky situation.